Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of robbery. According to this section, "whoever commits robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In order to prove the offense of robbery, the prosecution must establish the following elements:
The accused must have taken or attempted to take any property from the possession of another person.
The taking or attempt must have been done by force or by putting the person in fear of injury.
The accused must have intended to take the property permanently or temporarily.
It is important to note that in order to constitute the offense of robbery, there must be an element of violence or threat of violence. Simply taking property without the use of force or threats would not be considered robbery, but rather theft.
The punishment for robbery is severe, with a potential imprisonment for life or a term of up to ten years. This is because robbery is considered a serious crime that can have a significant impact on the victim and the community.
In conclusion, section 392 of the IPC deals with the offense of robbery, which involves the taking of property by force or threat of violence. The punishment for this offense is severe, reflecting the serious nature of the crime.
Section 392 IPC (Indian Penal Code): Punishment for robbery.
The sequence of events were that on that day at about 6:00 p. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. According to the complainant, thereafter, they bolted the door from outside the house and left the scene of occurrence. A has therefore committed robbery on Z. The narration of the event that occurred on 27.
Can take plea alibi under section 103 of Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel also referred to Section 155 of the Evidence Act and contended that the version of PW. His associates were acquitted but th. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I: Punishment—Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable— Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. As against the above submission Mr. The trial Court ultimately convicted the appellant as well as second accused for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 392 read with 34 IPC. The other one was described as fair coloured, without moustaches and tall.
Supreme Court (SC) Judgements on IPC Section 392. Punishment for robbery
If you were the defence counsel, how would you argue before the court making a case of acquittal? The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the reliance placed upon the version of PW. They also removed a mobile phone and some other ornaments apart from ear rings and a necklace from the person of Shama Parveen. The learned counsel also relied upon Suraj Mal V. Any mere irregularity cannot be the reason of quashing of the any Judgement: High court of Delhi. The accused was tried for offences under s. He simply denie d tha t an y recovery was mad e from him.
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. In Mohammad Ishaq v. Both the trial Court as well as the High Court ignored the inconsistency in the statement of PW. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions reported in Paramjeet Singh supra and Suraj Ma supra. After entering the house they enquired about Mammu and when Shama Parveen replied that he had gone to fetch vegetables the accused snatched a gold ring, locket and cash amounting to Rs.
In that respect it can be stated that the prosecution examined PWs. His cross-examination was conducted only on 18. The three accused thereafter stated to have left the place with the robbed items and cash by locking the door outside the house. Wassan Singh and others - AIR 1981 SC 697, Sohrab and another V. The learned counsel further contended that the recovery of arms from the appellant and the other accused were not connected to the offence and that no weapon was marked before the Court to connect the crime. They were acquitted of the offence under Section 354 IPC as there was no evidence against them.
Highway robbery is still more serious. Since, in the impugned judgment the High Court has dealt with both the contentions in extensor and also with minute details, we are of the view that by making reference to various reasoning stated therein the contention of the appellant can be satisfactorily dealt with which we shall do in the later part of this judgment. It was also not their case that no robbery had taken place or Salvinder had not been murdered. Robbery is a serious offence can be seen by the quantum of punishment as well as by noting that simple imprisonment has not been provided for it. .
. We may say at the cost of repetition that the only defense taken by the accused persons was that they were not the persons who committed either the robbery or the murder of Salvinder. Jamil alias Mammu also entered the house and another friend of Shama Parveen, namely, Nasreen and her husband Jeeta also came there. Further it was pointed out that their refusal to participate would result in drawing an adverse inference against them. Question: In a case of murder section 300 of IPC , all 7 witnesses stated alike that the accused 'A' had assaulted the deceased 'D', a 62 year old woman, on her head with an iron rod and after a lapse of two days, D died. In fact, we find from the judgment of the trial Court that specific charge was framed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 392 read with 34 IPC.
Any mere irregularity cannot be the reason of quashing of the any Judgement: High court of Delhi.
State of Uttaranchal - 2006 9 SCC 386, Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari V. The Trial Court acquitted them under all charges except Section 392, IPC,. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the approach of the trial Court and the High Court in weighing the evidence of the witnesses and relied upon was well justified. Punishment : According to Para 1 — Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Suresh - 2000 1 SCC 471, Nallabothu Venkaiah V. The request of the Investigating Officer to hold Test Identification Parade was stated to be on the very next date, namely, 5th November, 1998.
